Case law library
Australian case law library
Search court decisions by neutral citation, case name, jurisdiction, court, judges, catchwords, and judgment summary.
Case law entry points
Start with judgments that other decisions keep coming back to, then follow the citations through the case graph.
NCAT Appeal Panel | 2014-04-09
Tenants were terminated for non-payment of rent following an uncontested hearing where the landlord's agent gave evidence and the Member recorded findings in hearing notes. The tenants sought leave to internally appeal under s 80(2)(b) but did not raise any question of law; therefore leave required. Clause 12 Schedule 4 requires showing the appellant 'may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice' because the decision was unfair, against the weight of evidence, or there is significant new evidence. The tenants relied on phone logs and asserted contact and willingness to pay. The Appeal Panel found the record disclosed arrears and necessary findings, the phone logs were not fresh or persuasive, and there was no denial of procedural fairness. Leave was refused, the appeal dismissed, and the stay of the original orders lifted.
1,764 case citations
Before: Mitchelmore JA, Ball JA
The Court of Appeal did not decide afresh whether Mr Shapkin was a lodger. It refused permission for a further appeal because the University-owned student accommodation was, on the Court’s reading, covered by the student-residence exemption in cl 31 of the Regulation. That exemption independently meant the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply. Since the s 8(1)(c) lodger question could not change the result, it was not a suitable issue to appeal in this case. The Court also rejected the proposed argument about the agreement’s expiry and ordered Mr Shapkin to pay the University’s costs.
Before: McCallum CJ
Before: McCallum CJ
Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1], McHugh JA at [2], Ball JA at [3]
The Court of Appeal accepted that Jet Midwest had a strong apparent claim to property held by Rex, but held that this did not mean it should automatically be allowed to pursue court proceedings while Rex was in voluntary administration. The administrators’ proposed sale process, the protection available through s 442C, and the broader and more complicated nature of Jet Midwest’s proceedings supported the primary judge’s refusal of leave. The Court also upheld refusal of leave to pursue the escrow deposit claim at that stage because it was complex and not urgent. It granted leave to appeal because the case raised a point of principle, but dismissed the appeal.
Before: Leeming JA at [1], Mitchelmore JA at [28], McHugh JA at [166]
The Court of Appeal accepted that an adjudication application would have been premature if BPB’s claim and notice were not served until the Rewaises learned of them on 11 June 2024. But it found the documents had already been served by email. The Rewaises’ dealings with BPB, including receiving and responding to emailed invoices labelled as Security of Payment Act claims, impliedly specified the email address for documents including the claim and adjudication notice. The emails did not have to be opened to count as received. The Home Building Act provisions relied on did not prevent enforcement of the interim adjudication determination. Both appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.
Before: Leeming JA at [1], Kirk JA at [2], Stern JA at [3]
The Court of Appeal reversed the primary judge's decision to set aside the medical assessment and the delegate's refusal to refer the matter to a review panel. It read the assessment and delegate's reasons as a whole, found no reviewable error in the treatment of the MRI report, pain, arm and buttock symptoms, Nguyen, or shoulder measurements, and dismissed Ms Yangzom's judicial review application.
Before: Bell CJ and Kirk JA at [1], Adamson JA at [104]
The Court of Appeal majority overturned the Tribunal’s finding of professional misconduct. It concluded that the doctor had not been given fair notice of the specific claim that financial pressure to sell Somatropin stock compromised her clinical objectivity. It also held that the Tribunal had not rationally explained why it rejected her oral account of patient consultations. Finally, the Tribunal’s statements that no IGF-1 tests had been sought and that all monitoring was missing conflicted with the patient records. The complaint must be reconsidered by a differently constituted Tribunal. Adamson JA dissented, taking a different view of the notice, evidence and factual findings.
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Before: Catsanos SC DCJ
Before: Scotting DCJ
Before: Scotting DCJ
Before: Weinstein J
Before: Hmelnitsky J
Before: Brereton J
Before: Crow J, French CJ, Kiefel JJ
The applicant argued that his sentence was unfairly different from Johnson’s because his parole eligibility came later. The Court accepted that parole consequences matter to the parity assessment, but said they must be considered with the whole circumstances. The applicant was the driver who pursued and struck the motorcycle, had a worse criminal history, and had offended shortly after release on parole. Those differences justified the sentencing disparity. The Court refused leave to appeal.
Before: Mullins P, Boddice JA, Bond JA
Kingston's conviction appeal focused on two developments during the trial: the Crown dropped one stated basis for dishonesty on count 1 and briefly raised, then withdrew, another basis on count 2. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's directions made clear what the jury could and could not consider, so the jury did not need to be discharged. The Court also rejected the sentence arguments. It considered that the judge was entitled to address Kingston's claim that the arrangements were a way to recover unpaid remuneration, and it found that the imprisonment imposed was not manifestly excessive. The convictions remained in place, and leave to appeal the sentence was refused.
Before: Tsalamandris J
Before: Attiwill J
Before: Jane Dixon J